A survey of enabling technologies in synthetic biology Kahl and Endy Kahl and Endy Journal of Biological Engineering 2013, 7:13 http://www.jbioleng.org/content/7/1/13 Kahl and Endy Journal of Biological Engineering 2013, 7:13 http://www.jbioleng.org/content/7/1/13 RESEARCH Open Access A survey of enabling technologies in synthetic biology Linda J Kahl* and Drew Endy Abstract Background: Realizing constructive applications of synthetic biology requires continued development of enabling technologies as well as policies and practices to ensure these technologies remain accessible for research. Broadly defined, enabling technologies for synthetic biology include any reagent or method that, alone or in combination with associated technologies, provides the means to generate any new research tool or application. Because applications of synthetic biology likely will embody multiple patented inventions, it will be important to create structures for managing intellectual property rights that best promote continued innovation. Monitoring the enabling technologies of synthetic biology will facilitate the systematic investigation of property rights coupled to these technologies and help shape policies and practices that impact the use, regulation, patenting, and licensing of these technologies. Results: We conducted a survey among a self-identifying community of practitioners engaged in synthetic biology research to obtain their opinions and experiences with technologies that support the engineering of biological systems. Technologies widely used and considered enabling by survey participants included public and private registries of biological parts, standard methods for physical assembly of DNA constructs, genomic databases, software tools for search, alignment, analysis, and editing of DNA sequences, and commercial services for DNA synthesis and sequencing. Standards and methods supporting measurement, functional composition, and data exchange were less widely used though still considered enabling by a subset of survey participants. Conclusions: The set of enabling technologies compiled from this survey provide insight into the many and varied technologies that support innovation in synthetic biology. Many of these technologies are widely accessible for use, either by virtue of being in the public domain or through legal tools such as non-exclusive licensing. Access to some patent protected technologies is less clear and use of these technologies may be subject to restrictions imposed by material transfer agreements or other contract terms. We expect the technologies considered enabling for synthetic biology to change as the field advances. By monitoring the enabling technologies of synthetic biology and addressing the policies and practices that impact their development and use, our hope is that the field will be better able to realize its full potential. Keywords: Synthetic biology, Biological engineering, Enabling technologies, Survey, Intellectual property rights, Licensing, Regulation * Correspondence: [email protected] Bioengineering Department, Stanford University, Y2E2 Room 269C, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4201, USA © 2013 Kahl and Endy; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Kahl and Endy Journal of Biological Engineering 2013, 7:13 Page 2 of 18 http://www.jbioleng.org/content/7/1/13 Background coupled to those technologies. Investors and funders of Synthetic biology is an emerging, interdisciplinary field synthetic biology research also may find this information that aims to make the design, construction, and optimi- useful in guiding funding decisions and establishing pol- zation of biological systems easier and more reliable. icies for the patenting and licensing of enabling technolo- Advances in synthetic biology will deepen our under- gies. Information gained from monitoring the enabling standing of how biological systems work, and should technologies of synthetic biology also may be useful in enable faster and cheaper development of useful medi- identifying technology trends, and could help government cines, chemicals and materials, new means for informa- agencies and non-governmental organizations in crafting tion processing and data storage, and sources of food policy frameworks to address the safety and security con- and energy that could help promote human health and cerns raised by synthetic biology research. preserve the environment. Although the field of syn- thetic biology is relatively young, there have already been Results promising advances in engineering microorganisms to Demographic data produce important drugs [1,2], exploring strategies for During the period the survey was active, from August biofuel production [3,4], and designing and DNA-based 31, 2012 to January 30, 2013 a total of 160 responses information storage [5,6] and genetically-encoded com- were received. Six responses were excluded because they munications and processing systems [7,8]. did not contain answers to any of the substantive ques- As is true for many emerging fields of research, realiz- tions on technology use. Seventeen responses were from ing the full potential for constructive applications of participants who answered “no” to Survey Question 11 synthetic biology will require not only the continued that asked survey participants to indicate whether they development of enabling technologies but also the im- considered themselves to be a synthetic biologist or to plementation of policies and practices to ensure that be engaged in basic or applied synthetic biology research these technologies remain accessible to those working in or development. Responses from these 17 survey partici- basic and applied research. The enabling technologies pants were analyzed separately, and the remaining 137 for synthetic biology can be defined, broadly, as any re- responses were used for most analyses. agent or method that, alone or in combination with as- Responses originated from the United States (121 re- sociated technologies, provides the means to generate sponses, 88%) and ten other countries (16 responses, any new research tool or application in synthetic biology. 12%). The distribution of responses from outside the Because the field of synthetic biology spans a wide range United States was Australia (1), Canada (1), Germany (2), of disciplines – from engineering and biology to math- Israel (1), Italy (1), Japan (3), Mexico (1), Sweden (1), and ematics and computer science – the technologies con- the United Kingdom (5). Responses were received from sidered “enabling” by synthetic biology researchers may researchers working exclusively in a non-commercial be expected to cover a broad range, depending on the organization (n = 91, 66%), exclusively in a commercial focus and nature of the research. Monitoring the enab- organization (n = 39, 28%) and in both commercial and ling technologies of synthetic biology is an important non-commercial organizations (n = 7, 5%). Among survey step towards understanding the needs, abilities and ac- respondents working exclusively in a non-commercial complishments of this diverse research community. organization, most indicated that they worked in a college Here, we conducted a survey among a self-identifying or university (n = 64), research institution (n = 9), govern- community of practitioners engaged in synthetic biology ment laboratory (n = 1), were affiliated with both a col- research to obtain their opinions and experiences with lege/university and research institution (n = 12) or were technologies that support the engineering of biological independent (n = 5). Among survey respondents working systems. The aim of this first study was to define a set of exclusively in a commercial organization, most were from enabling technologies for the field of synthetic biology, small companies of fewer than 50 employees (n = 21) and with a focus on technologies used in research laborator- the rest were from companies of more than 1000 em- ies in both academia and industry. Our goal was to ployees (n = 11), fewer than 1000 employees (n = 3), and gather information about the technologies considered fewer than 250 employees (n = 4). Of the 7 survey respon- enabling by practitioners in the field so that we and dents that worked in both commercial and non-commer- others might better evaluate the landscape of synthetic cial organizations, all worked in a small company of fewer biology and explore policies and practices that best pro- than 50 employees as well as a college/university or re- mote continued innovation. For example, it is likely that search institution. useful applications of synthetic biology will embody mul- tiple patented inventions and monitoring the enabling Experience with the iGEM competition technologies of synthetic biology will facilitate the sys- Survey Question 2 asked participants to provide infor- tematic investigation of the intellectual property rights mation about their experience as student or non-student Kahl and Endy Journal of Biological Engineering 2013, 7:13 Page 3 of 18 http://www.jbioleng.org/content/7/1/13 participants of the International Genetically Engineered The majority of synthetic biology researchers in academia Machines (iGEM) competition (http://igem.org), a syn- (n = 88) used biological parts from